Directories
Quick Searches
Find a Job
Quick Search
For Employers
Yahoo! HotJobs Local Search
REGION: Dueling propositions target eminent domain
Voters to choose between two eminent domain reforms this June
By GARY WARTH - Staff Writer | ∞
California voters will once again weigh private-property rights against public needs when they consider two initiatives aimed at reforming eminent domain in June.
Coming two years after state voters last considered and rejected a proposition to rein in the government's power to seize private property, Propositions 98 and 99 both are billed as true eminent-domain reforms. Likewise, both propositions are called shams by their opponents.
The propositions are on the June 3 ballot and represent the latest in a string of eminent-domain reforms that have been introduced since a controversial 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed the city of New London, Conn., to seize private property for private development.
States across the nation since then have been considering or adopting ways to restrict eminent domain. Californians considered eminent domain reform under Proposition 90 in 2006, but narrowly defeated the initiative amid concerns about its effect on environmental protection and local zoning laws.
Both sides involved in the Prop. 90 campaign last year united to try to bring reform through a state constitutional amendment, but later split and wrote the dueling initiatives on this year's ballot.
Too much, or not enough
Prop. 98 would prohibit governments from using eminent domain to take any private property for private use, such as shopping centers or industrial parks. Private property still could be taken for public use, such as freeways, parks or schools, but it could not be taken to convert the property to a similar use, such as turning residential housing into government housing.
Also known as the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, Prop. 98 is co-sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights.
Critics of Prop. 98 say it is a Trojan horse, as its real goal is the elimination of rent control. The proposition is backed by owners of mobile home parks, which in many California cities are required to have rent control.
Under the alternate Prop. 99, governments could not take owner-occupied residences through eminent domain, but could take apartments, commercial property or rental homes.
Also known as the Homeowners Protection Act, Prop. 99 is backed by the League of California Cities and the California Redevelopment Association.
Critics of Prop. 99 include the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit public interest law firm formed to fight eminent domain abuse, which says the initiative does not go far enough, but is simply a ploy by cities wanting to retain their power to seize property.
Proposition 98 and rent control
Besides including broad protection for private property owners, Prop. 98 would phase out rent control in California. Residents now living in rent-control units would not be affected, but the landlords could raise rent on the units once the tenants move out.
Marko Mlikotin, a spokesman for Prop. 98, said the rent-control provision is related to eminent domain because both are about private property rights. Just as a property owner should have the right to decide whether to sell his property, he also should have the right to set the rent, Mlikotin said.
Mlikotin also said the provision was necessary because without it, the government could get control over a building it cannot physically seize through eminent domain. Taking over the building's rent would be just another way of taking over the building itself, he explained.
"The drafters of the measure have learned that when the government is prohibited from doing one thing, they'll get around it," he said from Sacramento.
Oceanside Mayor Jim Wood said he opposes Prop. 98 because ending rent control would hurt many of the city's seniors living in mobile home parks.
"This would be devastating to our senior citizens," he said.
Twelve California cities have rent-control ordinances, and about 110 mobile home parks throughout the state are under rent control. Escondido, Oceanside and San Marcos have mobile home parks with rent control.
Wood said he's not "overly thrilled" with Prop. 99, but plans to ask the City Council to endorse the measure.
Although Prop. 98 would phase out rent control only after a tenant has moved out, Wood said he worries owners would begin bullying elderly tenants to move out as soon as the proposition passes.
Tim Sheahan, present of Golden State Manufactured-Home Owners League Inc., agreed.
"If 98 is passed, think of the rampant elder abuse and exploitation that can happen," he said.
Kay Parker, an Oceanside Housing Commission commissioner, said she opposes Prop. 98 because it is "draconian" and takes away local control.
Besides protecting many property owners from eminent domain seizures, Mlikotin said Prop. 98 also would help business owners who lose their property to the government. The proposition would lift a $10,000 cap placed on the amount business owners are reimbursed when they are displaced, allowing them more money to relocate.
In another change, Prop. 98 also relieves private property owners of having to accept take-it-or-leave-it deals, Mlikotin said.
"The government can take your property without even compensating you," he said about eminent domain. "The catch under the current law is if you take money, it's an agreement. This (proposition) would allow you to take the money and still challenge it if you haven't been fairly compensated."
Proposition 99
In Vista, where some fear they may lose property as the city embarks on a large redevelopment project, the dueling propositions have many residents' attention.
While the City Council has endorsed Prop. 99, resident Michael Booth called it a fraud that offers no real protection for private-property owners or even the homeowners it claims to protect.
"Ninety-eight sees what the cities are doing," he said. "They're trying to boost tax revenues by pushing people out, buying property, selling it to developers. Whatever they have to do to boost tax revenues."
Booth is a member of Vista's Project Area Committee, a citizen committee required by the state to oversee any redevelopment plans that affect a large number of residents. While the city has never claimed a home through eminent domain, Booth said the city's latest proposed redevelopment plan could affect at least 3,000 residences, which has some people concerned.
"I think they're very justifiably worried about the power of eminent domain," he said.
Booth said he has no problem with the rent-control component of Prop. 98.
"A lot of elderly are concerned about that," he said. "They shouldn't be. They're thinking that 98 is going to hurt them. It keeps the rent control they have, but over a period of time it phases it out."
Other critics say cities still could seize owner-occupied homes under Prop. 99 simply by rezoning the property from residential to commercial.
Cathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for No on 98/Yes on 99 in Sacramento, said that's just wrong.
"The property is protected no matter how it's zoned," she said. "It (Proposition 99) doesn't mention zoning, and that was on purpose. If it's a home in a commercial business, in a residential neighborhood or a commercial area, it's still a home."
Fairbanks said Prop.99 does not cover everything, but said more protection can be added later. Its strong point, she argues, is its simplicity.
"It offers very, very strong eminent domain protection for homeowners," she said. "It says your home will never be taken for eminent domain and turned over to a private developer."
From ashes of Prop. 90
Fairbanks said the two propositions came from the aborted Assembly Constitutional Amendment 8, which would have offered broad protection from eminent domain seizures. The amendment was written in part by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
Fairbanks said the proposed amendment did not have enough support from state Republicans. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association began working with mobile home park owners, who funded the alternative initiative. Meanwhile, the League of California Cities prepared its own alternative bill, Prop. 99.
Fairbanks said Prop. 98 is flawed because it attempts to do too much. In one example, the proposition prohibits the "transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner.”
By including "natural resources" in the wording, Fairbanks said the proposition could mean the government is prohibited from using eminent domain to obtain water, which she said is why agricultural groups are opposed to it.
Western Growers Association and the Association of California Water Agencies are opposed to Prop. 98.
Contact staff writer Gary Warth at (760) 740-5410 or gwarth@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Lisa wrote on May 5, 2008 8:38 PM:Vote no on Prop 98. Save our senior citizens and our people that are on fixed incomes. Vote no on Prop 98.
another election wrote on May 5, 2008 10:48 PM:I'm confused why we're having another election. We've already had one in 2008, and another in November. Why an election in June? Seems like these could wait until then. What a waste of tax dollars.
To Lisa wrote on May 6, 2008 4:59 AM:Lisa the rent control is phased out, it doesn't affect those folks on rent control at present, only after they move out.
To To Lisa wrote on May 6, 2008 6:47 AM:to the poster at 4:59 AM:
The last 4 words of your post say it all. Prop 98 would affect seniors and others on fixed incomes "after they move out," and every future renter. I hope you have a pleasant retirement yourself.
John E wrote on May 6, 2008 7:35 AM:Why can't we get a simple ballot initiative which protects owners of private property from seizure for private redevelopment, period? Liberals and conservatives were strongly united in outrage over the Supreme Court's unconstitutional Kelo vs. New London decision, and all we want to do is to protect our homes and businesses against any eminent domain which goes beyond public works projects. If a big money developer wants to redevelop my property, he can negotiate directly with me, to see whether we can agree on a price acceptable to both parties. If we cannot do so in an open market environment, he should not have the right to get the government to help him strong-arm me out of what is mine.
Randy wrote on May 6, 2008 7:37 AM:Rent control should be phased out after a person leaves. Otherwise it is neverending theft from the property owner. That was never the intention of rent control.
to to Lisa wrote on May 6, 2008 8:02 AM:Rent control does not work. It creates rental unit shortages. Yep I am retired, and enjoying it.
seniors say wrote on May 6, 2008 10:29 AM:from all I've read...the word is no on 98/yes on 99...and one day we'll be seniors too!!
Economics wrote on May 6, 2008 10:32 AM:Lisa should study economics 101. This college course discusses the economic effect of rent control. On the surface, rent control seems like a good idea but in fact it results in housing shortages, higher prices, and urban blight. This has been proven out time and time again in cities where lawmakers have instituted rent control. If Prop 98 phases out rent control, that is a reason to support the measure.
Ridiculous wrote on May 6, 2008 11:05 AM:Prop 98 will screw the folks in rent-controlled units, and that benefit will evaporate forever! VOTE NO. As for PRop 99 it's not better and is very vague and will probably tie everything up in court for years to come. VOTE NO ON BOTH of these so there is no confusion at the polls!
vote no on both wrote on May 6, 2008 11:16 AM:The way the propopisitons are written is slanted to a side of special interest groups. They should just have a proposition that says that the city can't force you out of your property in order to give the land to a developer. In order to prevent the switcharoo that happens in politics there should be passage that the land can't be used for any other puropse than what the land grab was proposed for 10 years.
to seniors say wrote on May 6, 2008 11:54 AM:Who wrote the information you were reading? We must all learn to think critically. Detractors of proposition 98 may not have the community's best interests in mind. Eliminiating rent control in California is a laudable goal. Conservative economists (Nobel Laureates Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek) and liberal economists (Nobel Laureaute Gunnar Myrdal and socialist Assar Lindbeck) all have expressed strong opposition to rent control. I wonder who wrote what you were reading and what their motives are.
to vote no on both wrote on May 6, 2008 12:10 PM:Voting no on both is a vote to let stand an overreaching U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows the state under eminent domain to take private property for purposes of private development. In the past the state could only take private property for purposes of public projects like freeways, parks, and schools. If you think its ok for the government to buy your home or business out from under you and award the property to another private individual, then you should vote no on both.
tom wrote on May 6, 2008 12:51 PM:Vacancy decontrol has been in affect since 1995...when you move from your rent controlled unit you won't find below market rate rents. Prop.98 would not change the rental market that much. We would still have Ca State landlord/tenant laws. The real risk for renters is if prop.99 passes cities can bulldoze your apartment or mobile home park and put in a car dealership or strip mall. Vote Yes 98/No 99.
To Mr Warth wrote on May 6, 2008 1:39 PM:Where do you get your facts? You state in your story that Vista city council endorses 99, yet I was present at the April 22nd meeting where the vote regarding 99 was taken off the agenda. Could you please respond and tell us where you got YOUR info?
Paul wrote on May 6, 2008 2:11 PM:They ought to have a law that props need to be written in clear language. Remember back when there was a prop vote "no" on "yes" or was it "yes" on "no"? These folks that obfuscate are a joke.
Osider wrote on May 6, 2008 3:50 PM:Eminant domain Oceanside's city hall and clean up all the corruption within their departments. This would be a good start!
Vote no and bug our legislature to act wrote on May 6, 2008 4:04 PM:Vote no on both as neither is well written and loaded with horrible ramifications. AND then we need to get our legislature to act against taking property for city/state gain. We have too many initiatives because we allow it to happen by not compelling our elected officials to act FOR US!! Put them to work, people.
Gary wrote on May 6, 2008 5:21 PM:This is Gary Warth, the reporter who wrote the article. To answer the question about the Vista City Council's vote, they did pull the item from the agenda to discuss it, but then they voted 5-0 to endorse Proposition 99.
cancel wrote on May 6, 2008 7:14 PM:my subscription to the resurrection...Gary has no idea what he's talking about!
Max Headroom wrote on May 7, 2008 8:01 AM:Once again, thanks to a toothless and gutless Legislature not doing its job, we are stuck with two flawed initiatives and a number of voters will no doubt be confused as to which does what to whom.
John E. (at 7:35 a.m.) has it right. We just need a simple law that says no eminent domain to hand property over to a private developer. Those developers are the first to scream about property rights, but they'll gladly use an arsenal of lawyers and bought-and-paid-for politicians to take away OUR property rights.
Against the law wrote on May 7, 2008 8:05 AM:California law says an initiative can only address one issue, which means Prop 98 could easily be overturned by a lawsuit. Pretty hard to argue rent control is the same issue as eminent domain. So if we pass 98, someone (probably GSMOL) will sue on behalf on the seniors, most likely get it thrown out, and people will be screaming again about how the courts ignore "the will of the people."
Gary Warth, staff writer wrote on May 7, 2008 10:29 AM:Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, the council did not take the item off the full agenda, but took it off the consent agenda, the list of items usually approved in a single motion without discussion. They pulled it off the consent agenda so they could discuss it later, and then they voted 5-0 to endorse the proposition.
Concerned One wrote on May 7, 2008 12:54 PM:Rent control is bad. Eminent domain that takes property for develpment use is bad. Prop 98 is good.
To Vote No PM wrote on May 7, 2008 3:05 PM:The politicians in our legislature don't act because they have no incentive to act. The private developers who stand to gain from the Supreme Court decsion are the same private developers that finance the campaigns of our state legislature.
Alf wrote on May 7, 2008 5:24 PM:"Dueling Propositions" is inaccurate. They are both BAD, 98 does too much and 99 does too little. THE ISSUE is correcting the abuse of eminent domain. That is THE ONLY issue, the central issue and it makes no sense to vote yes on either one. Regards, Alf.
yes on -- no on wrote on May 7, 2008 5:46 PM:John E said it very eloquently:
"Why can't we get a simple ballot initiative which protects owners of private property from seizure for private redevelopment, period? Liberals and conservatives were strongly united in outrage over the Supreme Court's unconstitutional Kelo vs. New London decision, and all we want to do is to protect our homes and businesses against any eminent domain which goes beyond public works projects. If a big money developer wants to redevelop my property, he can negotiate directly with me, to see whether we can agree on a price acceptable to both parties. If we cannot do so in an open market environment, he should not have the right to get the government to help him strong-arm me out of what is mine."
PROP 98 is the way to go.
Unfortunately -- the developers are going to flood the airwaves with propaganda to convince people that they should be able to take our property. Let's not be snowed over...
Not just about rent control wrote on May 7, 2008 6:39 PM:This is also about open space, and wildlife corridors.
This is about emiment domain of natural resources, esspecially now that the counties have recreated "new" general plans. The new general plans have gone around the illegal process of downzoning land by creating new general plans.
The open space, or wildlife corridors in Riverside County alone are going to be more than 220,000 contigious (connected) acres of creeks and riverbeds, as much as 1/2 a mile on either side of the creek.
This is slated to happen all over California. (Greenbelts)
The fair market value of openspace, habbitat, or aka wildlife corridors, is $0.00 per acre.
Without at least one of these propostions every farmer will be required to purchase their water from water districts rather than use their riparian water rights they acquired with their land...many of them, over 100 years ago.
Without one of these passing farmers and other creek owners houses and all will not be compensated for their riparian water rights.
Without one of these passing current openspace owners will not be compensated for the natural resoures on their land.
Without one of these passing we will be paying the same price for a head of lettuce as we are paying for a gallon of gas.
- ESCONDIDO: Man shot dead at Fourth of July party (9990)
- TEMECULA: Protesters line intersection (6096)
- ESCONDIDO: 3 DUI arrests, 46 impounds at checkpoint (4934)
- ESCONDIDO: City's dreams of an 'upscale' downtown may be dying (4635)
- ESCONDIDO: Victim's roommate recalls July 4 shooting, friends gather for vigil (4429)
Advertisement